Hasty and brusque

AMERICA’s rejection of the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country is both hasty and abrupt. It is almost as abrupt as the Taliban’s initial rejection of President Bush’s offer of a “second chance” to hand over Osama to the US. What is even more unfortunate is that Washington does not seem to have taken note of a definite shift in the Taliban policy on the Osama issue. In fact, one only has to carefully study the Taliban deputy leader’s remarks at his Sunday’s press conference to realize that a conciliatory approach is clearly visible there. The remarks, surprisingly, reflected a bit of nostalgia, for Maulvi Abdul Kabir asked Washington to remember the days when Afghanistan and the US were allies against Soviet occupation. The offer to hand over Osama to a third country also indicates a change in the Taliban’s previous stand, which had restricted the handing over only to a Muslim country. In fact, in their latest policy pronouncement on the issue, the Taliban have not ruled out any possibility. Asked whether Osama could be handed over to the US, Maulvi Abdul Kabir said, “It can be negotiated provided the US gives us evidence that the Taliban are assured that the country (to which Osama would be turned over) is neutral and will not be influenced by the United States.” This is by no means an unfair demand where the question of justice is concerned. This naturally cannot be ensured in the prevailing atmosphere of hatred and prejudice in America if the trial of Osama bin Laden takes place there. Yet, a White House spokeswoman was quick to react negatively, saying: “The president has made it clear there will be no negotiations.”

One may ask the Bush administration: if talks are not the recognized method of resolving a dispute or differences, what else is? This rigidity of approach is most unfortunate considering the fact that since the air strikes against Afghanistan started ten days ago, the Taliban have resiled from their original position of not entertaining any thought of expelling or turning over Osama bin Laden. Today, they are offering to hand over Osama to a third country not necessarily Muslim and also hold talks on this and other related issues. Why must, then, the US insist that Osama be handed over to it only? If a fair trial is what Washington wants, the purpose will surely be served better in a country other than the US.

There is the example of the Lockerbie trial. After years of refusal to hand over the suspects to Britain, Libya finally agreed that the trial be held in a country other than Britain. Finally, the trial was held in Holland. It was a trial open to all, including the media, and the suspects were given a fair chance to defend themselves. Ultimately, they were convicted. The same process can be followed in Osama’s case too.

Handing over Osama to the US runs the risk of the trial turning into a media circus. Besides, trials in America are conducted by a jury consisting of common citizens with no knowledge of law. Moreover, so much has been said and written against Osama that an American jury is unlikely to maintain the fairness and impartiality expected of it in a trial like this. Clearly, if America’s aim is a fair and impartial trial, then in the given circumstances a country other than the US is the logical option for meeting the ends of justice. The trial should be open, and, of course, the prosecutors would be Americans, because they alone are in possession of the evidence needed to establish culpability in the Twin Tower and Pentagon bombing cases. The third country would not necessarily provide judges; it would merely be the host. The judges could come from some other countries. For reasons of justice and fairness and to avoid further military action, the US would do well to reconsider its position on the offer made by the Taliban and make a positive response to it.

Vandalizing the Taj

WHO would want to deface a structure as magnificent as the Taj Mahal? Shah Jahan’s 17th century masterpiece may well be a symbol of eternal love for millions, but a group of militant supporters of India’s ruling BJP recently defaced the building to vent their hatred. Taking time off from a party gathering in Agra, the overzealous supporters decided to daub highly provocative Hindu nationalist slogans on the marble walls of the Taj. Fortunately, the damage is not of a permanent nature and the structure will soon be restored to its original glory. This insensitive and philistine act, however, is likely to leave deep scars on India’s already shaky communal edifice. This incident may have been an isolated act of vandalism by extremists but it does reflect the current hawkish mood of India’s principal ruling party. One important reason is that Uttar Pradesh is all set for crucial elections which the ruling BJP feels it must win at all costs. The BJP is under severe electoral pressure in the state which has long been the bastion of its power. The party has traditionally tended to stoke communal tensions and increase its anti-Pakistani rhetoric when it finds itself in electoral trouble.

Before the Taj incident, New Delhi had adopted a strong anti-Pakistan line on a number of issues, including the rejection of General Musharraf’s invitation to the Indian prime minister to visit Islamabad and the talk of launching a war on Pakistan. It had also tried to invent a parallel between the September 11 attacks in the US and the strife in Kashmir and increased its efforts to label Pakistan as the prime sponsor of global terrorism. At the domestic level, the government banned a Muslim student group, accusing it of having terrorist connections. Just before the vandalism at the Taj took place a number of provocative speeches were delivered by BJP politicians, some of whom demanded the immediate construction of a temple at the site of the destroyed Babri mosque in Ayodhya. Others launched thinly veiled attacks on Muslims. Clearly, the BJP desperately needs to win the UP state elections. But the price it could pay for this victory, in the shape of fanning communal tensions, could be damaging for India’s peace and stability.

Senseless threat

IT was absurd on the part of district executive and education officers in Karachi to order that all public and private schools must remain open and all government employees must show up for work yesterday — a strike day. Anyone who lives in this city knows that the calls for strike have become a euphemism for a day of disruption of civic life and of violence on the streets. That’s why businesses remain shut and public transport stays off the roads on such days. A large number of people cannot possibly make it to work for these obvious reasons. Thus the threat of deducting a day’s salary of a government employee who absented himself from work yesterday is utterly senseless and speaks of a mind and attitude totally devoid of logic and realism.

The executive orders passed by the said officials also smack of the bureaucrats’ total lack of empathy with the helpless employees most of whom do not have transport of their own to make to their workplaces in the absence of public transport. It is the authorities’ failure to maintain law and order that keeps people indoors — not for any love of the cause that prompts a strike in a particular case but simply out of fear for their lives. This is how it was yesterday and it would be downright thoughtless and officious to carry out the threat of penalty for absence from duty yesterday.